Civil Remedy Of Defective Product's Own Loss

Whether the damage in Article 41 of Tort Liability Act include defective product's own loss caused a sharp controversy in the field of civil law.The vague legislation also created confusion judicial practice. From the perspective of comparative law, the loss of product itself does not apply in product liability law in most countries, but the simple mechanical processing mode, evoked a series of troublesome issues. Considering problems above,we intend to study on civil remedy of defective product's own loss. The article consists of six parts:In the first part,we define related concepts of defective product's own loss. Research on the current domestic product almost all are to focus on whether the harm include self-harm, but ignores the cause of product's own loss. Moreover, the terms of the legislation in the field of product is also confusion.It is in urgent need of regulation. So, before solving the disputed issue, it is necessary to define the concept. We believe that, we should better define the defect as an unreasonable danger to people's property and body, and then define the defective product's own loss which make product's loss due to the defect above.In the second part,we sort out the focus of controversy on civil remedy of defective product's own loss. Summarized in this section on the academic point of view, it comes down, but also judicial practice, the problems of the sort. The main focus of controversy main two Views : In the first, how to explain the damage in Article 41 of Tort Liability Act? In the second, how to coordinate the Tort Liability Act and related laws ? We believe that, we should define the harm in broad way and based on Tort Liability Act as the center applicable law.In the third part, we learn from the foreign countries' experience on the focus of controversy. Comparison study here will not stay only in the comparative law of different legal systems, different countries and regions.we also try the doctrine of these countries and regions as well as new ideas to discuss judicial instance, in recent years.Through research, we found that not only the traditional legislative and theoretical point of view, but also the major countries and regions are generally considered. Defective products from the loss should not be included in the tort law remedies.But more and more courts support victims achieve tort law remedies in almost all countries.It Will become a trend.In the fourth part,we weigh it by interest on the issue whether defective product's own loss can achieve tort law's remedies.Following the specific lawsuits,we weigh the interests of the victims involved, operators, producers, courts and other body.Finally,we get conclusion that Tort Liability Act relieves all the defective product's damage can maximize benefits.In the fifth part,we solve several laws' coordination.We think that Tort Liability Act's rank is higher than Product Quality Act, but it does not mean the former replace the latter. When conflicts,it should base on Tort Liability Act. Moreover,we should define Consumer Protection Act's property damage including product's own loss,in order to balance with Tort Liability Act.In the sixth part,we acknowledge defective product's own loss can achieve tort law remedies as a premise.Then we try to study on whether victims can claim mental damages and punitive damages.We think that it is unwise to completely ruled out mental damages.moreover,when producers and sellers have willful misconduct or gross negligence making damages including product's own loss, victims have the right to request punitive damages.